protect owners, operators and pilots of aircraft from any consequences of mistakes and unprofessional behaviour
This sentiment worries me. An element of this theme is the risk/benefit relationship. If there is large probable benefit, some risk may be warranted. I think back to a time decades ago when I observed three kids in distress otherwise unseen in a lake, after a number of "conforming" maneuvers to attempt to attract attention, I finally buzzed a busy beach of people at ten feet, and threw a note out the window. In anticipation of low flying complaints, I reported myself to the regulator first. "No problem, if you thought you were saving a life, the risk [buzzing the crowd] was warranted". Nothing ever came of it.
However, in my opinion, when the only possible benefit is a crowd being able to watch needless low level aerobatic maneuvers in a heavy antique aircraft, there is little room for risk. It is the pilot first and foremost who is responsible to all other people, in assessing this, and assuring that all other people are not put at risk.
If the Hunter engine had disintegrated, and spit parts all over the countryside during a straight and level pass at 1000', and a person got hit by one, not good, but it would seem that the pilot was probably flying the plane in a way in which risk to other people was low. Choosing a path in the sky which requires high accelerations and direction changes, with less room around people, and little space for a back up plan is different.